While we can pretty much rest assured that your average burglar or dope dealer is safely locked away, in some countries the more dangerous elements appear to have a free pass. The man responsible for Canada's 'Little Columbine' walked away from a halfway house the other day, and in Holland the more severe cases spend their days in TBS-clinics (literally meaning 'at the disposal of the government) which have an equally dangerous open-door policy. And beware the critics, the head of one of the clinics lashed out at some politicians who dared to openly question the lax policies that enabled some of the countries most dangerous elements to escape:

In response to the concerns expressed by MPs, Jos Poelmann, director of the TBS clinic in Pompekliniek in Nijmegen, warned of the danger of over-reacting.

"There are 90 cases of escapes by TBS patients annually. By agreement, this information was made public. But if MPs react like this every time and call on the minister to face up to his responsibilities, we will no longer be able to do our work," Poelmann said.

The reason why Poelmann reacted so vigorously can be explained. Society at large considers those convicted with a TBS-sentence as criminals, whereas the professionals that run these outfits view their clients primarily as patients, sure to be cured at some point in time. Problem: if they walk away prematurely they have a habit of doing what they were locked up for in the first place: killing people.

NOTE: One infamous TBS-convict was discussed earlier on these pages, here.

UPDATE: Here's a sad story from British Columbia where an escapee from a halfway house butchered an innocent retiree who happened to be living in the proximity of the facilty that housed "low-risk" inmates.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali points to the limitations of Iraq’s new constitution in a column for WSJ’s OpinionJournal:

Hamam Hamoudi, the head of Iraq's constitution committee, refuses to discuss the article that worries the Muslim women. He also refused to put in the draft constitution that men and women have equal rights, creating a bizarre situation whereby the women had more rights under Saddam Hussein's regime than in post-Saddam Iraq. Mr. Hamoudi insists that women will have full economic and political rights, but the overwhelming evidence shows that when Shariah--which gives a husband complete control over his wife--is in place, women have little chance to exercise any political rights. Does Mr. Hamoudi realize that it took the removal of Saddam and the establishment of a multiparty democracy for men to vote, while if his draft constitution is ratified, women will need the permission of their husbands to step out of the house in order to mark their ballot?

And, she draws a parallel with the implications for women under Canada’s arbitration legislation. Read the whole thing.

Too much has already been written about this affair, which to me is nothing but a fairly distasteful sideshow that no one should be asked to sit through. There is one, and only one, piece of comment that you need to read and that comes from Christopher Hitchens. Read it, forget Cindy Sheehan and move on to other stuff. Please.

Roger links to the news that Japan apologized for its wartime colonization and invasions during World War II, an issue that continues to be highly sensitive:

The war's legacy lingers in Asia, where many of Japan's neighbors accuse Tokyo of failing to atone fully for invading them and colonizing the Korean peninsula and Taiwan. The issue has stirred opposition to Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.

Well, there’s one country that took full advantage of Japan’s invasion and that is Indonesia. It declared itself independent on the defeat of its colonial masters by Japan in 1942, an act that was formalized on August 17, 1945 in the chaos that ensued following Japan’s defeat. The Dutch never really recognized this and waged a four-year war (the so-called “police actions”) against Indonesian insurgents to reclaim sovereignty, an effort that ultimately failed resulting in a full Dutch withdrawal in 1949.

Ever since, Indonesia’s date of independence has been a bone of deep contention. Tomorrow however will mark the first time since the 1940s that the Dutch government will attend the August 17th independence celebrations in Indonesia and thus retroactively accept that date as the formal end of its colonial rule in what was then called the Dutch East Indies. Some groups have jumped on this and are now arguing for a formal apology for the “police actions”. Since an apology is tantamount to accepting liability for causing damage don’t expect a lot of movement on this one, but do count on a re-evaluation of the years that the Dutch attempted to forcefully re-assert sovereignty over its lost island empire.

Christopher Walken is running for president. Whether this is a credible effort or not, the Catalina Island drowning of Natalie Wood with a drunk Walken on the same boat is sure to add some Chappaquiddick momentum to the Walken ticket. Otherwise, he's a pretty good actor.

One of the things I haven’t done since my trip back to Europe is to reflect on the mood over there, bearing in mind that my approach is in no way based on sound scientific sampling of opinions. Still, having spoken to many different Dutch people over a period of two weeks some clear patterns did emerge.

First, political correctness has gone out of the window completely, at least on the conversational level. Where people in the past would hasten to make qualifying remarks after a bold statement about immigrants, these days comments about knife-wielding Moroccans are followed by a very precise analysis about their whereabouts and origins with no attempts to soften or apologize for any of the statements just made. That attitude has also made its way into traditional media.

Secondly, the ability to accurately identify the immigration problem and its attached demographic uncertainties do not automatically translate into a deep concern or an interest in pro-actively finding creative solutions. A sense of resignation is omnipresent at least that’s the impression I got. “It’s bad and things are not going to get better”, “the next subway attack will be here” and “you’re much better of living abroad” were statements that kept coming back throughout my stay.

Thirdly, this sense of gloom is not just about immigration or terror. Despite some recent good news there is little optimism when it comes to the economy at large. The housing boom has run its course, consumer prices are high (many still blaming the Euro introduction), there's a sharp increase in consumer debt and bankruptcies, and the job market has slowed down considerably. Again, a sense of resignation is prompting many to believe that things will not get any better soon, if ever. It’s interesting to note that an entirely new immigrant labor force has emerged: Poles. Commuting from their native grounds they now provide a variety of services at very low rates – not to mention very hard work as opposed to the spoilt native workforce – which in turn has contributed to an increased local unemployment rate.

And finally crime. It’s not rampant, but anecdotal evidence points to more home invasions and the increased use of firearms in broad daylight. The cover of weekly HP/De Tijd this week dealt with the perception that the police very often prefers not to confront violent criminals, who of course can freely travel in and out of a nation with porous borders.

All of this confirmed what I sensed was the case and about which I’ve written extensively on this site.

Yet, believe it or not, I came away with a generally positive feeling. Holland as a nation is a far different place from what it was when I left it some fifteen years ago. Privatization, deregulation and an almost North American way of commercializing day-to-day life have really changed the place. Taxes are at or near the lowest levels they have ever been since the 1970s and the government last week announced further cuts in order to help kick-start an economic recovery. On the immigration side things are looking up too. Vrij Nederland, a traditionally left-wing periodical has moved to the center on anything from economics to immigration, and this week it reported on upward mobile Muslim women under the heading Glamour & Belief:

While still a relatively small group, there are bright spots and many Muslims are doing anything they can to move forward and become part of Dutch life.

So there are some bright spots but generally the Dutch are confused about where to go next. Too much coincidental social and economic change has left them somewhat clueless and the nation's leaders as well as the media have so far been shooting largely from the hip, betraying a similar level of cluelessness. Politicians now have a duty to engage the electorate in a constructive debate about how to move forward by looking at the core issues, from defining the nation’s role in the European project to a constructive approach to integration. It may take years and in the short-run things may not get better at all, note that interest in emigration remains very strong. Still, despite all the negativity and gloom and doom, the Dutch have a very good shot at improving their destiny.

It looks like another another Peaktalk friend is considering his blogging future. Joe Katzman's is moving to America (so Winds of Change can no longer be considered Canadian content?) and will stop contributing to the excellent Winds on a regular basis. Good luck, Joe.

Today the Indonesian government signed a peace deal with rebels in Aceh:

The deal, signed in Helsinki by Indonesian Justice Minister Hamid Awaluddin and Malik Mahmud of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), provides for an amnesty and disarming of the rebels from Sept. 15 and restricts government troop movements in Aceh.

Aceh, located on Sumatra island, has always been a restive area - even the Dutch fought many battles here. The recent conlict erupted about two years ago but apparently last year's tsunami prompted peace talks. Given its history this may be a temporary arrangement, but it nevertheless is good news.

The German election campaign was kicked off by chancellor Gerhard Schroeder earlier today. Building on the winning strategy of the 2002 contest he again played to anti-American sentiments:

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder opened his campaign Saturday for next month's national election seeking to rejuvenate his beleaguered center-left party by taking a swipe at U.S. military aggressiveness and the verbal gaffes of a conservative opposition leader.

"But take the military options off of the table; we have seen that they're not suitable," Schroeder said, apparently alluding to U.S. President George W. Bush's statement on Israeli TV on Friday that "all options are on the table" in the confrontation with Iran.

With the strong showing of a new party on the left, Schroeder needs to shore up his base and that will unfortunately go at the expense of transatlantic relations, again. Ultimately, the lack of a constructive debate about the future of Europe's largest economy will be at the expense of the German voter.

NOTE: Davids Medienkritik confirms my suspicions that the German campaign will be fought over anything but the real issues.

The debate on multi-culturalism rages on, this week Sundries raises the issue again in an interesting post, asking the question: plurality, or unity? The answer may be here, although its day-to-day implementation is probably quite hard. Consider for instance the latest in the discussion about allowing sharia in the province of Ontario:

In a recent report, Marion Boyd, a former provincial cabinet minister who works as a mediator, recommended that religious law maintain a role in family arbitration as long as safeguards are built in to protect women and children.

Ontario's Attorney-General, Michael Bryant, plans to respond in the fall. Opponents of Sharia, many of whom are Muslim women who came to Canada to escape repressive regimes, denounce the law. They say it treats women like second-class citizens.

Alia Hogben, president of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, has called Sharia family arbitration "an abuse of multiculturalism."

The problem here is that western societies have long extended the privilege of religious arbitration to other communities. One rabbi not long ago even defended this practice and made the compelling point that the adjudication of private disputes, as long as they followed local law, would be an “appropriate method of community and ethnic involvement".

Plurality, subject to unity.

One of my regular readers has raised the issue of the future of the allied war graves in Europe and what will happen to them if relations between Europe and the US further deteriorate:

Old Europe--I do not know about New Europe--does not appear to have the strength, or even the desire, to defend itself against Muslim colonization. Bernard Lewis is, therefore, likely to be correct when he says that Europe will become a Muslim society during the current century. It follows logically, then, that the time has come for the US and the American people to remove our war dead from our graveyards in Europe, the Netherlands included. It is only a matter of time before the European Left, well practiced in the art of sucking up to tyranny, or the new Muslim masters of Europe run bulldozers through these burial sites, vandalizing the graves of American soldiers, bulldozing their remains into the sea, burning them and desecrating them in numberless other ways. It is better for the American government and the American people to recognize Old Europe is lost to ultimate Muslim control, that American cemeteries in Normandy and across once Christian Europe are prime targets for European/Muslim insult and to bring these soldiers home while there is still time to do so. In time, all Europeans will come to hate these soldiers. How much better it is to act before that time is reached.

As a child my parents took me to many of these cemetaries and I grew up experiencing the deep symbolic value of the strong bond between North America and Europe. It was also a stark reminder of the importance of fighting tyranny.

It's an issue for Americans and Canadians to decide what to do with thse graves in the future but given what they represent a removal would only mean one thing: we've given up on Europe. Despite all my admonitions about Europe and its future, I think it is way too early to give up.

It´s been slow over here but there´s a good reason: I have spent the past two weeks in Holland on holiday, primarily visiting family. It was a good break and it was actually nice to be back home. Of course many, many discussions on politics and the future of Europe, terrorism and trans-atlantic relations. Enough to re-energize the batteries and get Peaktalk back to its daily routine when I return tomorrow (after a grueling 10 hour flight).

One reader adds the following to the list:

Proportional Representation. The necessity to bring in smaller parties, with little actual public support, inflates their influence and inhibits effective political leadership. This, of course, does not exist in the UK (much to the dismay of the Liberal Democrats) but most European countries have this Albatross (my opinion). It does lend itself to preventing a party from moving a country “too far” in any political direction and can maintain stability. The problem arises when the stability is not very stable.

It´s an interesting one. PR is more democratic - everyone get´s a say, more compromises - but it does indeed prevent sound decision making in difficult times.

In what will probably one of the last instalments, Arthur Chrenkoff has another Good News from Afghanistan up. I will miss the invaluable contributions from Arthur as well as his generous linkage to this site now that he moves on to another career. Best of luck and stay in touch.

Ever since taking on the reluctance of Europeans to line up behind George Bush after 9/11, a lot of assumptions have been made about why the majority of Europeans seems to be reluctant to face the inescapability of this war and is generally unwilling to fight it. The latter assertion in itself is a major assumption, gleaned from the way politics are conducted in some European capitals as well as the results of sometimes dubious polling data. And critics can also argue that given the last presidential election it is only a slim majority in America that is aware of the threat and has been willing to buy into the Bush strategy.

Still, I will venture out to say that there’s very little appetite in Europe’s mature democracies to take on the continent’s jihadist problem and that those who propose drastic measures still represent a minority. The public at large remains indifferent, is likely to vote appeasers into office – think Spain - or follows the cues of state-run media who are all too keen to widen the gap between Europe and the US. But why? Why is there still this strong and pervasive sentiment to appease, ignore and neglect the problem? Why is there some much lethargy when it comes to revive a spirited defense of democracy?

So to define this issue a bit better and to create a definition for this issue going forward, I have listed the key factors. Here we go:

Ingrained political correctness. Decades of relentless campaigning to instil a mixture of multicultural and moral relativism have worked. Attitudes and targeted hate speech laws have made it very hard for politicians, media and citizens alike to abandon pre-conceived ways to conduct a debate about pressing social and cultural matters. Those who try to break this mould are labelled as ´provocative´or ´hate-mongers´.

An over-reliance on the government to sort things out. This is a logical reflex, Americans ask their government to wage war too, but this tendency is compounded by the general European inability to pick governments that can prioritize. What does this mean? Human rights trump a crackdown on terrorist groups and the importance of unemployment benefits outweighs bombers on the tube, to name a few examples.

Strong reluctance to equate Europe’s troubles with a US-based solution. The tendency to completely separate Bush and his war on terror is omnipresent even among Europe’s right-leaning press and thinkers. It’s cultural (Europe is different after all) as well as political (anti-Americanism plays well to some constituencies) and it is unlikely to change even if a Democrat would occupy the White House. The idea of ´One Europe´ as an independent world power and counterweight to American power plays into this as well, the EU-elites like it and so do many media.

Different demographics. The difference with the US of course is anchored in the fact that having a rapidly growing homegrown Muslim population changes the dynamics of the debate in a material way. As mentioned before, it’s easier to take on jihadism and argue for democracy in Iraq from a desk in Washington DC than from a place where jihadists are well represented and organized, if not right around the corner.

Strong denial or Resignation. This is strongly linked to the hedonist complex: “it will go away, let’s ignore it for now, let’s enjoy the good times”. As the generation that fought World War II is passing away Europe is left with a population that has never ever waged war, peacekeeping missions being the closest thing identified with war. Utter incomprehension can manifest itself in this denial or even some resignation: “there’s nothing that we can do about it anyway”.

So let’s call these the five pillars of Europe’s inertia. Again, these attitudes may certainly be prevalent in America and Canada (which as with anything is somewhere in between the US and Europe) but they primarily define European attitudes when it comes to waging the war against fundamentalist terror.

If you know of others, let me know and I will add the best ones to the list.

UPDATE: Arjan has a lenghty response and highlights a particular Dutch instinct:

Ignoring issues until it becomes impossible to do so is literally a way of life.

Which begs the question: what kind of wake up call do the Dutch need? Ignoring the Nazi threat in the 1930s resulted in a crushing defeat after a four-day battle and a devastating five-year occupation by a totalitarian force. Ignoring issues, a dicey strategy.

In addition to arguing how we should conduct it, one of the more pressing questions about the war on terror is how much room should we give law enforcement agencies in conducting that war. There is already quite a bit of criticism on Tony Blair’s recent sweeping anti-terror package, and it is not just coming from Muslim groups. Consider the following:

Expanded grounds for deporting foreigners, including fostering hatred, advocating violence to further a person's beliefs or justifying such violence.

Creating a new crime of condoning or glorifying terrorism.

Refusing asylum to anyone with terrorism links.

Expanding the government's powers to strip citizenship from naturalized citizens if they participate in extremism.

Consider expanding police powers to hold terrorist suspects for three months without charge. The current time limit is 14 days.

The measures of this package fall roughly into three broad categories. The first group contains the provisions that plug some existing holes and are easily justifiable, like refusing asylum to certain rogue elements. More controversial however is the second group, for instance the provision that would allow the UK to deport terror suspects to nations that are known to torture or randomly execute prisoners. Accepting that practice was until recently unthinkable – although not unheard of - but Tony Blair is willing to go as far as to amend certain human rights provisions in order to allow and legitimize these deportations. These changes are supportable and they fall right into bracket defined by De Winter who suggested that we amend laws whose intent creates a form of leniency from which radical elements actually benefit. The slippery slope starts when we start to imprison people for longer periods of time without charge, as this can become quite a repressive tool with an ability to lock up almost anyone whose activity can somehow be deemed to be “terrorist”.

Changing the way we deal with terror and radical activity is a must, but we should tread carefully. It’s generally hard for governments to give up near unrestricted privileges.